tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36242696597659736252018-02-15T10:28:13.422+08:00The Pinoy AtheistMy journey as a Filipino atheist in Manila.John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.comBlogger234125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-13291085957084907082018-02-15T10:25:00.001+08:002018-02-15T10:28:13.570+08:00My take on a certain Victor Villanueva (Part 1)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CC_UZku2ZbI/WoTvS8Lo6_I/AAAAAAAAP8o/8YLd6H3kBPEVfYFwH3Ubih-hlXTPZEvFgCLcBGAs/s1600/Page%2B1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CC_UZku2ZbI/WoTvS8Lo6_I/AAAAAAAAP8o/8YLd6H3kBPEVfYFwH3Ubih-hlXTPZEvFgCLcBGAs/s640/Page%2B1.png" width="480" /></a></div><br /><a name='more'></a><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yWcT1N7vNd8/WoTvSn3uayI/AAAAAAAAP8k/tMo-KGCFNEgzCrU8-1hGj3WGaCYfFPdcgCLcBGAs/s1600/Page%2B2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yWcT1N7vNd8/WoTvSn3uayI/AAAAAAAAP8k/tMo-KGCFNEgzCrU8-1hGj3WGaCYfFPdcgCLcBGAs/s640/Page%2B2.png" width="480" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vrBPzL4iTCM/WoTvVLn1pMI/AAAAAAAAP8w/vG7WyCsB_dkphfQkxGDj1fd-k67aq32FQCLcBGAs/s1600/Page%2B3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vrBPzL4iTCM/WoTvVLn1pMI/AAAAAAAAP8w/vG7WyCsB_dkphfQkxGDj1fd-k67aq32FQCLcBGAs/s640/Page%2B3.png" width="480" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yv0YAjujJog/WoTvVnyyrpI/AAAAAAAAP80/1jh4chNgsuEYm_0ToAwKEN43osRYf_LegCLcBGAs/s1600/Page%2B4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yv0YAjujJog/WoTvVnyyrpI/AAAAAAAAP80/1jh4chNgsuEYm_0ToAwKEN43osRYf_LegCLcBGAs/s640/Page%2B4.png" width="480" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-STk27CCWlec/WoTvUcxilaI/AAAAAAAAP8s/TukPr9inkS0tMwl2_a15kNKLXwp5t4U7gCLcBGAs/s1600/Page%2B5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-STk27CCWlec/WoTvUcxilaI/AAAAAAAAP8s/TukPr9inkS0tMwl2_a15kNKLXwp5t4U7gCLcBGAs/s640/Page%2B5.png" width="480" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZdznnCBum3g/WoTvV0FibHI/AAAAAAAAP84/FN-zIChDL60pl7Bly8KXZ-8tPN4BdZ_eACLcBGAs/s1600/Page%2B6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZdznnCBum3g/WoTvV0FibHI/AAAAAAAAP84/FN-zIChDL60pl7Bly8KXZ-8tPN4BdZ_eACLcBGAs/s640/Page%2B6.png" width="480" /></a></div><br /></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-14299372097026342122018-02-05T19:48:00.003+08:002018-02-05T19:50:39.140+08:00Opium<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yq67gUQybjk/WnhE114U17I/AAAAAAAAP7g/0zZG7ewJUxQimpCM82oDGVCuN5EcrX0YACLcBGAs/s1600/Capture.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="324" data-original-width="419" height="495" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yq67gUQybjk/WnhE114U17I/AAAAAAAAP7g/0zZG7ewJUxQimpCM82oDGVCuN5EcrX0YACLcBGAs/s640/Capture.PNG" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><b><i>"We have used the Bible as if it were a mere special constable's hand book, an opium dose for keeping beasts of burden patient while they were being overloaded, a mere book to keep the poor in order."</i></b> - Charles Kingsley, Leaders Of The Church 1800-1900 (1907), pp. 65-6</div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-31167480834524918382018-02-03T09:03:00.003+08:002018-02-03T09:03:56.732+08:00Why the Rants?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RVk2tdJR1CU/WnUKV7vdNiI/AAAAAAAAP6o/Vof041NWH-AO-XphD8IADuI0AdH583NRgCLcBGAs/s1600/Untitled-1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="879" data-original-width="1356" height="414" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RVk2tdJR1CU/WnUKV7vdNiI/AAAAAAAAP6o/Vof041NWH-AO-XphD8IADuI0AdH583NRgCLcBGAs/s640/Untitled-1.png" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I've noticed that some Christians are more into blustering rather than giving a good argument. No, not that I'm expecting them to give a good one, but? Ok. So these Christians think that non-believers enjoy mocking them. It's nothing personal. Sometimes, a good discussion becomes unruly if there's nothing to discuss in the first place. Christians always use same arguments- how many times such arguments have been deflated but do these Christians really read or study those counter-arguments? I don't think so.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There's a big difference between proselytizing and looking for the truth. In proselytizing, there's really no reason to look for facts, new discoveries, or to know the truth. It's just about trying to convince someone to believe what you believed. It has nothing to do whatsoever with an intellectual discourse.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Arguing about faith is a futile activity. Religious faith, as we all know has no evidence to present. It is a conviction, a personal belief unbaked by proof. It cannot be falsified. That's why Christians are always saying the same rant. They don't change. They don't upgrade - it is the same thing, over, and over, and over since what? AD 325?&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The real world is all about reason, facts, evidences and these things change over time. New findings are discover, analyzed. It is so big that there are a lot of things out there still waiting to be explored, unlike the fantastic yet small, insignificant world of the theistic god… A miserable, static universe where everything just goes round, and round and round like a broken down Merry-Go-Round.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-86215553331932809282018-01-14T09:13:00.003+08:002018-01-14T09:15:32.161+08:00Goodbye Old Friend...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--9fqXK2wdu4/WlquUD46HUI/AAAAAAAAP5s/Xzc3je9XQlASupnQVgUUzTDqsMTig2nzwCLcBGAs/s1600/26804518_1808135889216989_7323912639399607831_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="720" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--9fqXK2wdu4/WlquUD46HUI/AAAAAAAAP5s/Xzc3je9XQlASupnQVgUUzTDqsMTig2nzwCLcBGAs/s320/26804518_1808135889216989_7323912639399607831_n.jpg" width="240" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">You will be missed, but not forgotten.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A reason to be proud of Mr. Rico Manuel, an atheist debater in Luneta Park, and a friend.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">In his wake, there were no crosses, rosaries, saints, prayers. Just a white coffin and some flowers. At least till the end, Rico never fall to the faith trap. He was born an atheist and died an atheist.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Kudos to you!</div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-60262552875174350442018-01-04T08:34:00.001+08:002018-01-04T08:35:09.905+08:00Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn't add up.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eLu78Ly0SU0/Wk12Z8T16bI/AAAAAAAAP5A/8eyFdPjAQQg9v4WSq-Ja3STTKqkFu3SvwCLcBGAs/s1600/Capture.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="596" data-original-width="776" height="245" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eLu78Ly0SU0/Wk12Z8T16bI/AAAAAAAAP5A/8eyFdPjAQQg9v4WSq-Ja3STTKqkFu3SvwCLcBGAs/s320/Capture.PNG" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #111111; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot;; font-size: 18px;"><br /></span></div><span style="color: white;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: white; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot;; font-size: 18px;">Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: white; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot;; font-size: 18px;"><br /></span></div><span style="color: white;"><span style="font-family: &quot;georgia&quot;; font-size: 18px;"></span><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: white; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot;; font-size: 18px;">Read <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?tid=ss_tw&amp;utm_term=.4a17057aee12" target="_blank">more</a> to find out.&nbsp;</span></div><span style="color: #111111; font-family: &quot;georgia&quot;; font-size: 18px;"></span></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-41590289031732724002017-12-31T08:04:00.000+08:002017-12-31T08:06:32.614+08:00Circle or Sphere?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yKDxGJsqxUs/WkgkuX6r5lI/AAAAAAAAP30/TA1IGODD_KUbxzGi8pdeyeLH3Qr4xoTpQCLcBGAs/s1600/1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1132" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yKDxGJsqxUs/WkgkuX6r5lI/AAAAAAAAP30/TA1IGODD_KUbxzGi8pdeyeLH3Qr4xoTpQCLcBGAs/s640/1.png" width="452" /></a></div><br /><a name='more'></a><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8tZeotlWEsk/WkgnHZzuGqI/AAAAAAAAP4I/5aEqkYlxBRYIsi-PDf06ts5mp1NYwlwmgCLcBGAs/s1600/2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1132" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8tZeotlWEsk/WkgnHZzuGqI/AAAAAAAAP4I/5aEqkYlxBRYIsi-PDf06ts5mp1NYwlwmgCLcBGAs/s640/2.png" width="452" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-znIoL5jzM0k/WkglwAt-7jI/AAAAAAAAP38/tcBZNPClXdYZVgMRosWpy9qv2kF4acrBwCLcBGAs/s1600/3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1132" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-znIoL5jzM0k/WkglwAt-7jI/AAAAAAAAP38/tcBZNPClXdYZVgMRosWpy9qv2kF4acrBwCLcBGAs/s640/3.png" width="452" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BGJLeSkNF0A/WkgnvkhHpAI/AAAAAAAAP4Q/iZayamaXZ3cE4LCaBA-OiBns4k_eUZ_mACLcBGAs/s1600/4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1132" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BGJLeSkNF0A/WkgnvkhHpAI/AAAAAAAAP4Q/iZayamaXZ3cE4LCaBA-OiBns4k_eUZ_mACLcBGAs/s640/4.png" width="452" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2PbdqGJF--U/WkgoR2BnBQI/AAAAAAAAP4c/l3UUHgWLpw4bWBmsCNONYvQwOU3ywon6QCLcBGAs/s1600/5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1132" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2PbdqGJF--U/WkgoR2BnBQI/AAAAAAAAP4c/l3UUHgWLpw4bWBmsCNONYvQwOU3ywon6QCLcBGAs/s640/5.png" width="452" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PRDEbIE6csg/WkgoOK8o-qI/AAAAAAAAP4U/919_st31_VkOkIejitv68WeWMQJlW5SDQCLcBGAs/s1600/6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1132" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PRDEbIE6csg/WkgoOK8o-qI/AAAAAAAAP4U/919_st31_VkOkIejitv68WeWMQJlW5SDQCLcBGAs/s640/6.png" width="452" /></a></div><br /></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-68724306919184383732017-12-29T08:09:00.002+08:002017-12-29T08:11:57.156+08:00Mr. Mag-Abo Challenged Pinoy Atheist on a Debate (Part 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; text-align: justify;">The Debate goes in a different turn.&nbsp;<span class="_47e3 _5mfr" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 0; margin: 0px 1px; vertical-align: middle;" title="smile emoticon"><span aria-hidden="true" class="_7oe" style="display: inline-block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 0px; width: 0px;">:)</span></span>&nbsp;We're now in the issue of 2 Tim. 3:16. Seems the Born-Again Christian guy doesn't even know proper biblical exposition.<br /><br /><br /><a name='more'></a><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jCud1wEXOlc/WkWGaVf3nUI/AAAAAAAAP2c/_317czs6fooqQvx_N6208MpBd8MU4rsngCEwYBhgL/s1600/Page%2B1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="480" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jCud1wEXOlc/WkWGaVf3nUI/AAAAAAAAP2c/_317czs6fooqQvx_N6208MpBd8MU4rsngCEwYBhgL/s640/Page%2B1.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-obBqt4wjTPc/WkWGznlCRlI/AAAAAAAAP2c/Cp4-z7ztvlM4JuPIiRHhnGcQBFt6_0OlACEwYBhgL/s1600/Page%2B2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="480" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-obBqt4wjTPc/WkWGznlCRlI/AAAAAAAAP2c/Cp4-z7ztvlM4JuPIiRHhnGcQBFt6_0OlACEwYBhgL/s640/Page%2B2.png" width="640" /></a><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BCtQnsFzMyg/WkWGzqzUTMI/AAAAAAAAP2c/KejPFblA8549LRuSYv4_j6cgaj_Ovr2WACEwYBhgL/s1600/Page%2B3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="480" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BCtQnsFzMyg/WkWGzqzUTMI/AAAAAAAAP2c/KejPFblA8549LRuSYv4_j6cgaj_Ovr2WACEwYBhgL/s640/Page%2B3.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XXlWFmAS6fg/WkWG21kmcmI/AAAAAAAAP2c/LSCt5HEmXc8vUq9rNYSbFt0UvH43mddmwCEwYBhgL/s1600/Page%2B4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="480" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XXlWFmAS6fg/WkWG21kmcmI/AAAAAAAAP2c/LSCt5HEmXc8vUq9rNYSbFt0UvH43mddmwCEwYBhgL/s640/Page%2B4.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g8MXztLu5F8/WkWG3nQBPXI/AAAAAAAAP2c/GF5ua7j83sAiozD15Zv7poiK_X3IerulQCEwYBhgL/s1600/Page%2B5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="480" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g8MXztLu5F8/WkWG3nQBPXI/AAAAAAAAP2c/GF5ua7j83sAiozD15Zv7poiK_X3IerulQCEwYBhgL/s640/Page%2B5.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W2xizM3Eomw/WkWG42MJQ0I/AAAAAAAAP2c/6uOrdSjGqOEcskNNYxSbTKckxZSnM0swgCEwYBhgL/s1600/Page%2B6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="480" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W2xizM3Eomw/WkWG42MJQ0I/AAAAAAAAP2c/6uOrdSjGqOEcskNNYxSbTKckxZSnM0swgCEwYBhgL/s640/Page%2B6.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-6242982907736005772017-12-27T09:26:00.004+08:002017-12-29T08:12:13.305+08:00Mr. Mag-Abo Challenged Pinoy Atheist on a Debate (Part 1)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IeR55QpP3Is/WkL2GkXsw6I/AAAAAAAAP1k/s4f0EuRukxEYVh7Qh44WhDcJ452M2lAsgCLcBGAs/s1600/Page%2B1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="972" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IeR55QpP3Is/WkL2GkXsw6I/AAAAAAAAP1k/s4f0EuRukxEYVh7Qh44WhDcJ452M2lAsgCLcBGAs/s640/Page%2B1.png" width="388" /></a></div><br /><a name='more'></a><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9iaI7wq7J2E/WkL2CGrX6JI/AAAAAAAAP1g/UCi9ML2ZyakNs_NI8mSjupk8yYlV2RgKQCLcBGAs/s1600/Page%2B2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="972" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9iaI7wq7J2E/WkL2CGrX6JI/AAAAAAAAP1g/UCi9ML2ZyakNs_NI8mSjupk8yYlV2RgKQCLcBGAs/s640/Page%2B2.png" width="388" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-l0Uu8tlXKx8/WkL2fScbfFI/AAAAAAAAP1o/uGk3TkzdrysMgNBALNVRVSu2_C_C6ZWIwCLcBGAs/s1600/Page%2B3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="972" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-l0Uu8tlXKx8/WkL2fScbfFI/AAAAAAAAP1o/uGk3TkzdrysMgNBALNVRVSu2_C_C6ZWIwCLcBGAs/s640/Page%2B3.png" width="388" /></a></div><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: &quot;helvetica&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: &quot;helvetica&quot; , &quot;arial&quot; , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">That's no sweat. The Christian can't even be specific on his claim... like he's not even sure what to say. Anyway, I advised the Christian to be more specific in his next post.<br /></span></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-48107931536808873462017-12-20T09:23:00.000+08:002017-12-29T08:11:38.692+08:00Why am I skeptical about this Jesus character? (Part 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-URRIbofoX6Q/Wjm7hcJ8aBI/AAAAAAAAP1I/IsmKnMF_SWsiibZQe1E8Yb9DqyR4-kVmwCLcBGAs/s1600/Capture.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="476" height="402" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-URRIbofoX6Q/Wjm7hcJ8aBI/AAAAAAAAP1I/IsmKnMF_SWsiibZQe1E8Yb9DqyR4-kVmwCLcBGAs/s640/Capture.PNG" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">On my last post, we talk about how unreliable the gospels and Paul’s letter to prove the existence of the historical Jesus. Now, we’re going to talk about the so-called “historical evidence” of Jesus outside the New Testament.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Most Christians (in desperation) will try to prove the existence of Jesus by stating some so-called “Extra biblical Evidence” of Jesus outside the New Testament. Oh, those are the so-called testimonies written by some historians that mentioned Jesus – like Josephus Flavius, Tacitus, etc.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Well, let’s just mention here the most used personalities.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><a name='more'></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>A.) Josephus Flavius</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian, especially because he wrote during the first century. His father, Matthias, was a reputable and learned member of a priestly family, and lived in Jerusalem contemporaneously with Pilate.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Certainly he would have told his historian son about the bizarre and glorious events depicted in the gospels, had they occurred just years earlier. Josephus himself was appointed to Galilee during the Jewish Wars and was in Rome at the same time Paul was supposed to have been there incurring the wrath of the authorities upon him and his community of Christians. Yet, in the entire works of the Josephus, which constitute many volumes of great detail encompassing centuries of history, there is no mention of Paul or the Christians, and there are only two brief paragraphs that purport to refer to Jesus.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Although much has been made of these “references,” they have been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries. Early Christians, would have seized on anything written by Josephus as conclusive proof. Yet early Christians do not mention Josephus.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is not until the beginning of the fourth century that Bishop Eusebius, the propagandist of the Roman Church, suddenly produced a version of Josephus which contained these passages.19 From that point onwards, Josephus became the foundation for the historicity of Jesus.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Unable to provide any historical evidence for Jesus, later Christians forged the proof that they so badly needed to shore up their Literalist interpretation of the gospels. This, as we would see repeatedly, was a common practice.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>B.) Gaius Plinius Secundus AKA Pliny the Younger (@ 62-113 CE)</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the pitifully few “references” held up by Christians as evidence of Jesus’s existence is the letter to Trajan supposedly written by the Roman historian Pliny the Younger.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">However, in this letter there is but one word that is applicable, “Christians,” and that has been demonstrated to be spurious, as is also suspected of the entire “document.” It has been suggested on the basis of Pliny’s reportage of the Essenes that, if the letter is genuine, the original word was “Essenes,” which was later changed to “Christians” in one of the many “revisions” of the works of ancient authorities by Christian forgers.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>C.) Cornelius Tacitus (@ 55-120 CE)</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Like Pliny, the historian Tacitus did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after “the Savior’s” alleged death; thus, if there were any passages in his work referring to Christ or his immediate followers, they would be secondhand and long after the alleged events.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As governor of Asia c.l 12 CE, Tacitus must have been familiar with Christian 'troublemakers', as his friend Pliny obviously was. The only thing that would make Tacitus' writings an independent testimony to the existence of Jesus and not merely the repetition of Christian beliefs would be if he had gained his information about Christ being crucified under Pontius Pilate from the copious records that the Romans kept of their legal dealings. But this does not seem to be the case, for Tacitus calls Pilate the 'procurator' of Judea when he was in fact a 'prefect',’ so Tacitus is clearly not returning to the records of the time but quoting hearsay information from his own day.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This fact matters not, however, because the purported passage in Tacitus regarding Christians being persecuted under Nero is also an interpolation and forgery, as noted. Zealous defender of the faith Eusebius never mentions the Tacitus passage, nor does anyone else prior to the 15th century CE.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As Taylor says:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This passage, which would have served the purposes of Christian quotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or of any Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers. . . It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he had read and largely quotes the works of Tacitus. . . . There is no vestige or trace of its existence anywhere in the world before the 15th century.cxv</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>D.) Thallus</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There is no reason to believe that Thallus is a witness, much less an independent witness, to the historicity of Jesus.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Dating of the Thallus material referenced by Africanus is problematic. Eusebius references a "brief compendium" of world history by this Thallus in three volumes from the fall of Troy (1184 BCE) to the 167th Olympiad (109 BCE). Yet virtually all scholars have conjectured that the latter date is in error and that the original date was either the 207th Olympiad (CE 49-52) or the 217th Olympiad (CE 89-92). Thus, if one accepts that the book referenced by Eusebius is the same book in which Thallus mentioned an eclipse, one could date Thallus' book between CE 49 and CE 180 (when Theophilus mentions Thallus).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So when did Thallus write? We know that it could not have been later than CE 180, since that is the year Theophilus mentions Thallus. As for the earliest possible date for Thallus's book, that depends on whether Thallus ever mentioned the darkness. As the Christian scholar R.T. France writes, Africanus does not give Thallus' words, "so we do not know whether Thallus actually mentioned Jesus' crucifixion, or whether this was Africanus' interpretation of a period of darkness which Thallus had not specifically linked with Jesus." Africanus's reference to Thallus does not provide independent confirmation of Jesus.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>E.) Suetonius (@ 69-140 CE)</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Christian defenders also like to hold up as evidence of their godman the minuscule and possibly interpolated passage from the Roman historian Suetonius referring to someone named “Chrestus” or “Chrestos” at Rome. Obviously, Christ was not alleged to have been at Rome, so this passage is not applicable to him.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, while some have speculated that there was a Roman man of that name at that time, the title “Chrestus” or “Chrestos,” meaning “good” and “useful,” was frequently held by freed slaves, among others, including various gods.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Regarding these “historical references,” Taylor says, “But even if they are authentic, and were derived from earlier sources, they would not carry us back earlier than the period in which the gospel legend took form, and so could attest only the legend of Jesus, and not his historicity.” In any case, these scarce and brief “references” to a man who supposedly shook up the world, can hardly serve as proof of his existence, and it is absurd that the purported historicity of the Christian religion is founded upon them.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There were indeed at the time of Christ’s alleged advent dozens of relatively reliable historians who generally did not color their perspectives with a great deal of mythology, cultural bias and religious bigotry—where are their testimonies to such amazing events recorded in the gospels?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As Mead relates, “It has always been unfailing source of astonishment to the historical investigator of Christian beginnings, that there is not a single word from the pen of any Pagan writer of the first century of our era, which can in any fashion be referred to the marvellous story recounted by the Gospel writer. The very existence of Jesus seems unknown.”cxvi</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>F.) Phlegon</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The passage is an interpolation. Some of the reasons for believing this passage to be an interpolation are the following:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(i) Eusebius' quotation of Phlegon does not include a reference to a full moon or a three-hour eclipse;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(ii) "we cannot accept that, having just found fault with Thallus for calling this darkness an eclipse of the sun, Africanus then went on to cite Phlegon, without any censure at all, as calling it just that, and as adding, what he has just stated to be an absurdity, that it occurred at full moon."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>G.) Mara Bar-Serapion</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Mara Bar-Serapion is worthless as a witness to the historicity of Jesus. Just because Bar-Serapion discusses Pythagoras and Socrates in the same passage as he mentions this 'wise King' does not make it likely that this 'wise King' lived during roughly the same period as them. Moreover, given that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews, Bar-Serapion's choice of words is inexplicable unless we assume that he received his information about this 'wise King' from Christians.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Another problem with Bar-Serapion's letter is its historical inaccuracies. In addition to the bogus claim that the Jews executed Jesus, Bar-Serapion's letter contains other errors. The letter implies Pythagoras had been killed by his countrymen, yet "Pythagoras left the island of Samos in 530 B. C. and emigrated to the Greek colony of Croton in Southern Italy. He later died in Metapontum, which is now Metaponto, Italy."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>H.) Lucian of Samosata (c.125-180 CE)</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Given that Lucian's statement was written near the end of the second century, it seems rather unlikely that he had independent sources of information concerning the historicity of Jesus. Lucian may have relied upon Christian sources, common knowledge, or even an earlier pagan reference (e.g., Tacitus); since Lucian does not specify his sources. It is quite plausible that Lucian would have simply accepted the Christian claim that their founder had been crucified.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>I.) Talmudic or Jewish References</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One might think that there would at least be reference to the “historical” Jesus in the texts of the Jews, who were known for record-keeping.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Yet, such is not the case, despite all the frantic pointing to the references to “Jesus ben Pandira,” who purportedly lived during the first century BCE, or other “Jesuses” mentioned in Jewish literature. Unfortunately, these characters do not fit either the story or the purported timeline of the gospel Jesus, no matter how the facts and numbers are fudged.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The story of Jesus ben Pandira, for example, related that, a century before the Christian era, a “magician” named “Jesus” came out of Egypt and was put to death by stoning or hanging. However, ritualistic or judicial executions of this manner were common, as were the name “Jesus” and the magicians flooding out of Egypt. In addition, there is in this story no mention of Romans, among other oversights. Even if ben Pandira were real, it is definitely not his story being told in the New Testament.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Massey explains the difficulty with the ben Pandira theory:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It has generally been allowed that the existence of a Jehoshua, the son of Pandira . . . acknowledged by the Talmud, proves the personal existence of Jesus the Christ as an historical character in the gospels. But a closer examination of the data shows the theory to be totally untenable. . . . Jehoshua ben Pandira must have been born considerably earlier than the year 102 B.C. . . . The Jewish writers altogether deny the identity of the Talmudic Jehoshua and the Jesus of the gospels. . . . The Jews know nothing of Jesus as the Christ of the gospels . . . cxvii</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Of the Pandira/Pandera story, Larson states, “Throughout the middle ages, the legend of Pandera and Yeshu, considered by most scholars a Jewish invention, continued to persist.”cxviii This Jewish invention may have been created in order to capitulate to the Christian authorities, who were persecuting “unbelievers.” Thus we find the tale in the Talmud, written after the Christ myth already existed.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">To quote Wells:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Klausner’s very full survey of the relevant material in [the Talmud] led him to the conclusion that the earliest references to Jesus in rabbinical literature occur not earlier than about the beginning of the second century . . . If there had been a historical Jesus who had anything like the career ascribed to him in the gospels, the absence of earlier references becomes very hard to explain. When Rabbis do begin to mention him, they are so vague in their chronology that they differ by as much as 200 years in the dates they assign to him. . . . It is clear from this that they never thought of testing whether he had existed, but took for granted that this name stood for a real person. . . .</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But let us see what modern Jewish scholarship, as represented by Sandmel and Goldstein, has to say about Jesus’ historicity. Sandmel concedes that what knowledge we have of him “comes only from the NT”, “since he went unknown in the surviving Jewish and pagan literature of his time”; and that passages about him in the ancient rabbinical literature of reflect NT material and give no information that is independent of Christian tradition. That the Talmud is useless as a source of reliable information about Jesus is conceded by most Christian scholars.cxix</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Other Talmudic references to Jesus, cloaked by the name “Balaam,” are derogatory condemnations written centuries after the purported advent, thus serving as commentary on the tradition, not testimony to any “history.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Wells further states:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now that so much in the NT has fallen under suspicion, there is a natural tendency to exaggerate the importance of non-Christian material that seems to corroborate it— even though Christian scholars past and present have admitted that, on the matter of Jesus’ historicity, there is no pagan or Jewish evidence worth having . . .cxx</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As the scholar who unearthed these passages in the Talmud admits, even if they do refer to Jesus and not some other Yeshu, they cannot be taken as proof of }esus; existence, because they are written so late. Although based on older writings, the Talmud was not written until 200 CE, and we do not know whether these were early passages. Anyway, the rabbis are so vague in their chronology that they differ by as much as 200 years in the dates they assign to the figure that may or may not be Jesus! [Quoted in Angus, S. (1925), 208]</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">References:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Wells, GA, Did Jesus Exist?, Pemberton, 1986</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Wells, GA, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Prometheus, 1988</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Massey, Gerald, The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, Health Research</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Taylor Rev. Robert, The Diegesis, Health Research, 1977</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Mead, GRS, Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?, Health Research, 1965</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Christ Conspiracy--The Greatest Story Ever Sold - D.M. Murdock</div><div style="text-align: justify;">On the Historicity of Jesus -- Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt - Richard Carrier (2014)&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Killing History - Jesus In The No-Spin Zone - Robert M. Price</div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-36858276049682379552017-12-20T09:19:00.001+08:002017-12-29T08:12:51.309+08:00Why am I skeptical about this Jesus character? (Part 1)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ef9DCmO-qlg/Wjm6qebcBmI/AAAAAAAAP1A/KMOmRZq6iHAkeXdhkaFmbWA1NLPMFIv9ACLcBGAs/s1600/21231236_1545419592170264_1740809938762698797_n.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="586" data-original-width="924" height="404" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ef9DCmO-qlg/Wjm6qebcBmI/AAAAAAAAP1A/KMOmRZq6iHAkeXdhkaFmbWA1NLPMFIv9ACLcBGAs/s640/21231236_1545419592170264_1740809938762698797_n.png" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The first thing a Christian will demand to a skeptic like me is to believe in Jesus or face the consequences of going to hell. Well, the Christian bible is clear on that issue: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)… He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Why the big fuzz on “believing” and “not believing” this Jesus?</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Anyway, here are my reasons why I doubt this Christian Jesus:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. The gospels are unreliable</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. Paul is unreliable</div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. The silence of historians</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><a name='more'></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>The Gospels</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The first so-called evidence for Jesus a Christian will use is the four “gospels” in the New Testaments. There are a lot of speculations but it has been traditionally accepted that the Gospels were written after Paul’s letters, which would put them after 58AD. Also, most mainstream scholars tend to place the earliest, Mark’s Gospel, in the mid 70’s, sometime just after the Jewish-Roman War (66 – 70AD). This is because Mark contains unmistakable allusions to various events of the revolt, including the destruction of the temple in the year 70AD. Matthew, Luke and John were written within 95AD.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Who Wrote What?</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, how reliable are these “good news?”</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Not much. In the first place, the church never used the gospels as proof till the 2nd century AD. Furthermore, these are anonymous documents. The headings ˜According to Matthew,” “According to Mark,” “According to John,” etc., are not part of the text of the gospels in the early 2nd century. Let us blame Bishop Irenaeus (bishop of Lyons about 180AD) for naming all four as they are now named, and as the first to do so.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>History That Never Happened</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Gospels have problems concerning history - they report historical events that can be shown not to have happened. Good examples are (1.) the universal census under Augustus Caesar (Luke 2:1-4) - the one and only census conducted while Quirinius was legate in Syria affected only Judaea, not Galilee, and took place in A.D. 6-7, a good ten years after the death of Herod the Great. (2.) Herod’s slaughter of the innocent male children that supposed to happened in 6AD even if Herod’s reign ended in 4BC. (3.) The existence of city of Nazareth in the “supposed to be time” that Jesus existed (Matthew 2:23). The first reference to the city of Nazareth does not occur until the ninth century AD.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What to expect? The gospels are not written as a biography or a history book – it’s a gospel for crying out loud! The word ‘gospel” means Good News – It’s more of a propaganda material used for preaching not an honest to goodness factual report.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Each of the four canonical Gospels is a religious proclamation in the form of a largely fictional narrative. The gospel stories are largely allegorical and propagandistic. What’s more, the gospels are full of insertions, interpolations, errors and manipulations from later scribes – and we don’t even have the copies of the originals.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Paul of Tarsus</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Before the gospels, there were the letters of Paul. So, are they reliable?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One thing that you will notice on Paul’s writing about Jesus was that he have skipped the good parts – the virgin birth, the fantastic miracles, the appearances, earthquakes, legions of beloved Jewish saints coming back from the dead and publicly appearing in Jerusalem, supernatural darkness that covered the entire world, etc. In fact, Paul didn’t even connected Jesus in any historical facts that happened in his times. Paul never took into accounts any activities of Jesus on earth. Paul’s epistles didn’t mention that Jesus performed miracles - there were no mention of the healing miracles, water to wine, feeding of the multitude, walking on water and raising the dead. He didn’t even mention actual teachings that came from Jesus.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Much worst, when Paul says he have seen the “Lord,” this was only on a vision, not an actual contact.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So who or what is Jesus according to Paul? Well… a spiritual channel to God and one who has performed a redemptive act (the "atonement by his blood") in a mythical setting. Paul believed that Jesus is a divine presence who whispers teachings directly in his ear. In fact, Paul’s Jesus doesn’t even go to Earth. Did Paul even know there was supposed to be a real person named Jesus? If you look for evidence of the late Jesus of Nazareth from Paul and his letters you are out of luck – Paul has nothing to say about Jesus the Historical Human Being.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">On the next installment, we’re going to talk about the so-called “historical evidence” of Jesus outside the New Testament.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Until next time.</div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-44896380721402052322017-12-20T09:14:00.003+08:002017-12-20T09:14:39.559+08:00Lesson Learned<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: justify;">What I learned from my Kuya's death.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Faith is something like a sugar pill. It makes you smile a little. It gives you a temporary relief from the pain you are going through. It gives you a sense of satisfaction. However, after the day you realized that reality still rule and in order to face what is real, you have to accept the fact that magic and superstition doesn't change what already happened.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">You just have to live with it and face the fact.</div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-24925091737438946552016-09-28T10:14:00.002+08:002016-09-28T10:14:20.684+08:00Correction: The Carvaka<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">According to carvaka every object is made of 4 things not 5. They reject the presence of akasha or ether because it can't be precieved as they believe in only one kind of epistmology i.e. preception. on&nbsp;</span><a href="http://thepinoyatheist.blogspot.com/2014/08/ancient-non-believers-carvaka.html" style="border: 0px; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Ancient non-believers</a><br /><br />Thanks for the correction and heads up&nbsp;@ Gagan Nagra.</div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-17090600227237166772016-07-03T10:02:00.001+08:002017-12-29T08:13:32.364+08:00Is morality objective or subjective?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4gUBU1R4id4/V3hyKZwAj2I/AAAAAAAAPWw/-xpcDDKiTtcUpqC3kmAXHmNgTDrVIXoNACLcB/s1600/Morality.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4gUBU1R4id4/V3hyKZwAj2I/AAAAAAAAPWw/-xpcDDKiTtcUpqC3kmAXHmNgTDrVIXoNACLcB/s320/Morality.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br />Last week, I saw a post in Facebook courtesy of Mr. Reynaldo Awa in which he address the issue regarding objective morality. He started the post by defining “subjective” in which he said, “A concept only becomes subjective IF and ONLY IF that concept is a matter of personal preference, just like beauty, or fashion, or taste in food, or what-have-yous.” Based on his own definition, this is how he presented the meaning of subjective morality.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a><br /><br />Now, let me present to you my definitions…<br /><br />To simplify, subjective morality is about what we humans want. Objective morality on the other hand, is defined (based on Jerry Coyne’s definition) as being the stance that something can be discerned to be “morally wrong” through reasoning about facts about the world, rather than by reference to human opinion.<br /><br />So we now have 2 different approaches when looking at the subject of morality… but wait… morality is defined as the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior (based on a dictionary’s definition). So who gives the distinction? Well, it is us humans of course. We define what is ought to be “right or wrong,” right?<br />Do we base the difference “through about facts about the world?”<br /><br />Let us use Mr. Awa’s own example.<br /><br />According to his post, “We all know that the act of killing is wrong.”<br />Now, why do we know that killing is wrong? Mr. Awa did not gave us the answer for this, but he continued, “But when a person is killed due to self-defense? Did we disqualify altogether the fact that a person was killed here?”<br /><br />That’s the problem and you can even see it on Mr. Awa’s own words. If you will asked Mr. Awa about killing, since he “believes” that morality is objective – he will say that killing is wrong. However, if you will ask me, I may say that it depends on the time, place and situation.<br /><br />Here’s an illustration: Suppose a mother saw that her daughter is about to be “rape” by 3 men and she have the capacity to kill them. If she kills them to save her daughter, do you then say that the act of killing is wrong? But what if the 3 men were her daughter’s friends and the fact came out that her daughter really wanted to have sex with those 3 persons (so it has her consent and she’s already 23 years old) – and her mother killed them anyway, what will be your opinion now?<br /><br />Mr. Awa then said, “What of in wars? Have we forgotten the fact that people died there but still casualties are accepted as facts of war?”<br />What about wars? Is the war against terrorism good or evil? Is a war to end Hitler’s Third Reich evil? How about the war for a Nation’s independence? Is it good or evil?<br /><br />Noticed that all the answer to those questions depends on “What you want” and not from “facts about the world.” Using this in today’s situation as an example – We may disagree on President Duterte’s method when it comes to drug lords – there are those who favors it and there are those who don’t.<br /><br />Thus, if morality were objective, then every human in the world were to have same conclusion regarding killing and war but it’s still human opinion, feelings and desires that define it as “good and bad.” That is subjective morality.<br /><br />So, is it true (as what Mr. Awa said) that moral question is “in the VALIDITY of the act itself that is found OUTSIDE the moral agents and act itself?” No it’s not since it us humans who will be the one giving the distinction – based on our own wants (opinion).<br /><br />So why is morality subjective?<br /><br />First, morality is for our well-being.<br /><br />Morality is our obligation. As the Christian apologist Norman Geisler wrote, “Further, it is something we ought to pursue, a duty. Morality is prescriptive (an “ought”), not merely descriptive (an “is”)… and why is that? Because it is our responsibility to ourselves to be comfortable, healthy, or happy. However, human well-being is all about human feelings and preferences, and is thus subjective.<br /><br />Second, morality didn’t came from an Absolute Moral Law Giver.<br /><br />To believe that a Moral Law Giver is necessary for morality makes morality meaningless. This also makes morality arbitrary. If you are familiar with the Euthyphro Dilemma (I though Mr. Awa already read this?) Plato (through Socrates) have already tackled the issue – so, let us look at it on the Judeo-Christian perspective:<br /><br />On the pages of the Bible, it is said that God commanded his people “Thou Shall Not Kill.” Thus people like Mr. Awa who believe that morality is objective will say that God’s commandment makes killing wrong, thus making morality objective.<br /><br />Then we read on the same book that God orders his people to kill their enemies.<br /><br />Now, when God orders the killing, does this make killing a good act?<br />How about lying or stealing? The Bible said “Thou Shall Not Steal,” but if God orders the Hebrews to plunder their enemies, does this make stealing a good act? The Bible also said “Thou Shall Not Lie,” but if you lie to protect God’s people, does that make lying good?<br /><br />Defining morality based on what God wants doesn’t make it objective. It only makes morality arbitrary, relative and meaningless.<br /><br />Third, morality is not arbitrary.<br /><br />Since morality is not based on the command of an Absolute Law Giver, then morality is not arbitrary. Subjective morality is not arbitrary since it is based on human feeling and human interaction. Human feeling is not arbitrary. There is always what we call as common good. Our feelings and attitudes are rooted in human nature, being a product of our evolutionary heritage, programmed by human genes.<br /><br />Forth, morality is human made.<br /><br />Our definition of right and wrong is purely based on how we humans define it. The universe is amoral, nature is amoral – it doesn’t care. When a lion attacked and kill a human being, it doesn’t have a notion whether its act is right or wrong. When an earthquake or a flood happens, it doesn’t have any moral judgement whether on what is right or wrong. Since humans define it, it is based on human opinion and consensus – thus it is subjective.<br /><br />Well, that’s it folks. I guess I just put Mr. Awa’s case to rest… in peace.<br /><br />Have a nice Sunday.<br /><br />Until next time.<br />J.Paraiso</div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-82564657646881922542016-03-12T11:06:00.000+08:002016-03-12T11:06:42.261+08:00Facebook Time!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-toRiz13rhG4/VuOHpczyUnI/AAAAAAAAPUE/OCMfM5geG8MIpJfgalvSjS6uyrH6ylzMA/s1600/old_notepaper_texture_by_polkapebble-d37nxw3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-toRiz13rhG4/VuOHpczyUnI/AAAAAAAAPUE/OCMfM5geG8MIpJfgalvSjS6uyrH6ylzMA/s640/old_notepaper_texture_by_polkapebble-d37nxw3.png" width="504" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Hayz, the limitation of having no Internet connection, but still modern technology has its advantages. So today, I will be discussing some posted comments from some of my recent posts – minus the typical Christian bickering of course. I find these comment posts quite interesting that I just like to share a few words about ‘em hehehe!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. A certain Clarence Rustia Baluca was saying that if natural selection dictates that evolution happens because traits that are favorable are passed on and those that are disadvantageous are eliminated then why through evolution did the hermit crab lose the ability to grow a shell?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now, remember that evolution is not a sort of an easy “fix-up.” That means, unlike what Clarence Rustia Bacula thinks, evolution (through natural selection) doesn’t “dictates” what traits to go and what traits to stay. It’s a gradual process, a hit and miss, trial and error progression – now why do hermit crabs don’t have its own shell? Why do cave fishes still have useless eyes? Why some birds doesn’t fly? Why reptile loses its gills? – Because evolution is not perfect and it is exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent and the development takes step by step. In the hermit crab issue, the hermit crab is more likely related to the coconut crab – I’ve noticed the “almost the same” structure.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Anyways, unlike the coconut crab, the exoskeleton of the hermit crab doesn’t harden – then why are there still hermit crabs? Because these critters found something to compensate on what they lack – getting the shells from univalves mollusks – the same reason why primates discovered the use of tools. VIOLA! The species survived and did not became extinct (sad to say that the trilobites didn’t have the same luck). The imperfection of some animals is a good indication why evolution is true compare to the “design argument.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Oh by the way… Reptiles loses its gills because gills are not quite effective without water.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. According to John Lloyd Cordova Declarador, the New Testament is connected to history – it’s an evidence that God exists through Jesus Christ deeds and miracles.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Uh… really?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now, here’s some contemporary historians that were living in the said time when Jesus was said to be preaching his “gospel.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Philo-Judaeus, Justin of Tiberius, Arrian, Lucius Seneca, Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Pater Calus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Theon of Smyran, Martial, Phlegon, Persius, Pompon Mela, Plutarch, Quintus Curtius, Lucian, Apollonius, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Quintilian, Forus Lucius, Lucanus, Phaedrus, Epictetus, Damis, Silius Italicus, Alulus Geuius, Statius, Ptolemy, Columella, Diochry Sostom, Hermogones, Lysias, Valerius Maxiimus, Cornelius, Titus Livius, Cluvius Rufus, Publius Petronius … who else?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Anyway, let me ask Mr. John Lloyd Cordova Declarador</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Can you name me just one historian, other than the Bible that recorder this event as written in Matthew 27:51-53?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><b>And lo the curtain of the temple is rent in two from above to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks are rent and the tombs were opened. And many bodies of the °reposing~ saints were roused and, coming out of the tombs after His rousing, they entered into the holy city and are disclosed to many…</b></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Oh come on! The dead are walking in the streets of Jerusalem and the historians are silent?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I’m not really interested on Jesus coming out of his grave after 3 days, I’m interested on this episode of The Walking Dead. Here, according to Matthew, the dead came out of their grave and walked to Jerusalem (holy city) which on that time were occupied by Romans, yet no Roman historian or any writing in that matter (Yep, Romans were so good in writing their history) have chronicled the said strange event.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">And what other miracles did Jesus preformed that entered the journals of Roman historians living in his times huh?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Can you give me at least 2 or 3 examples?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Remember, “Extra-ordinary claim requires extra-ordinary evidence.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. Bobby Cruz’s rant is very funny. It just gives me the idea that most Christians cannot even comprehend their own holy book or their god. According to this guy, God entered a medium… WHAT? The ALL POWERFULL, CREATOR OF THE UNIVERESE entered a medium? Hindi kaya sumabog yung Medium na yun? Biruin mo, pinasok ng diyos ang katawan nya. If Bobby here reads the Bible, he will noticed that God didn’t possessed anyone nor did he entered the body of a Medium. It is only those declared as evil spirits has the capacity to do so. In the Bible story of the Ark of the Covenant for example, God doesn’t even allow a mere touch on something that he was supposed to be inside – just a small touch will kill you and now he wants me to believe that a mere medium will be the vessel of the God of Israel? Besides, it is very clear that God hates mediums.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">4. So do atheists like me hates the Bible?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">No, I treat the Bible like how I treat other so-called “sacred scriptures:” a collection of myths, primitive ideas, legends and tall-tales that god-believers believe.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">What is there to hate?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Until next time.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">John the Atheist</div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-42724381916010320812016-03-12T11:02:00.001+08:002016-03-12T11:02:56.946+08:00Facts vs. Religious Conviction<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">I’ve noticed that most god-believers seems to be allergic with scientific and historical facts, especially if these facts will collide with their religious belief. Wow! And they will claim that their religious belief is factual and scientific? Anyways, here are 2 examples:<br />1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The belief that the human body is the most advance machine… What? Machine? The New Oxford &nbsp;American Dictionary define a machine as an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task. Ok so a body is like a machine – so what’s the task of a male nipple? Or the appendix?<br />Most advance machine? Advance in what? The human body’s life span is 80 to 90 years. It deteriorates and it doesn’t even have the capacity to regenerate. &nbsp;Reptiles and crustaceans can regenerate a lost tail or limbs, but alas “the most advance machine” can’t even regenerate a lost thumb. The human skeletal system cannot withstand pressure, unlike ants which can carry things that are 10X bigger and 10X heavier. To top it all, our bones loses its calcium as time moves on. Our visions and hearing is limited – unlike some birds and mammals.<br /><br />So, again… advance in what?<br /><br />2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>A coin found in Jerusalem proves Samson exist. What? Just because a coin have a print of a guy fighting a lion proves Samson? Ok… so a large Greek urn that have a picture of a guy fighting a lion, or a three-headed dog prove Hercules exists. Good grief!<br /><br />There are more examples, but the thing is that when we talk about religion, it’s really not about facts and evidences – it’s about the conviction to make the myth as true as possible, even to the point that a believer must do away all logical and rational explanation.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9xyVyX8_7jw/VuOGjXza6ZI/AAAAAAAAPT8/9SK9Px9KKQEKjOFjXAzO1xVCgiZQqc6ng/s1600/Untitled%2B%25282%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="436" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9xyVyX8_7jw/VuOGjXza6ZI/AAAAAAAAPT8/9SK9Px9KKQEKjOFjXAzO1xVCgiZQqc6ng/s640/Untitled%2B%25282%2529.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OxZozJVTF6o/VuOGiAWiJCI/AAAAAAAAPT4/ReaAg3u6uMgW0s8DrmkAYS974FLpug3EQ/s1600/Untitled.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OxZozJVTF6o/VuOGiAWiJCI/AAAAAAAAPT4/ReaAg3u6uMgW0s8DrmkAYS974FLpug3EQ/s640/Untitled.png" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-9401165539401276292016-02-28T09:22:00.003+08:002016-02-28T09:22:58.113+08:00Unicorn?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: justify;">When you find a unicorn in the Bible, most Bible apologists will say that it was because of wrong translation.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, you think you're better in Hebrew compare to all of King James 72 scholars? Anyway, the issue is if there’s a unicorn mentioned in the Bible and thank goodness for the King James Version, there are.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZLIUnw8-QzQ/VtJLwY2P0wI/AAAAAAAAPTQ/0_4J8lvxrPA/s1600/When%2Byou%2Bfind%2Ba%2Bunicorn%2Bin%2Bthe%2BBible.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZLIUnw8-QzQ/VtJLwY2P0wI/AAAAAAAAPTQ/0_4J8lvxrPA/s640/When%2Byou%2Bfind%2Ba%2Bunicorn%2Bin%2Bthe%2BBible.png" width="480" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><br /><br /></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-65230830365472325402016-02-28T09:17:00.001+08:002016-02-28T09:17:05.068+08:00Albert Einstein on the Judeo/Christian God and the Bible<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: justify;">So, you guys think that Einstein believed your Christian/Bible deity when he said that “science without religion is blind” huh?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Better read this…</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><a name='more'></a><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">On January of 1954, just a year before his death, Albert Einstein wrote the following letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind after reading his book, "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt," and made known his views on religion. Apparently Einstein had only read the book due to repeated recommendation by their mutual friend Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fl1mbgdJvXk/VtJKcbzC3GI/AAAAAAAAPTI/LPoLuY1JM4E/s1600/Albert%2BEinstein%2Bwrote%2Bthe%2Bfollowing%2Bletter.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fl1mbgdJvXk/VtJKcbzC3GI/AAAAAAAAPTI/LPoLuY1JM4E/s1600/Albert%2BEinstein%2Bwrote%2Bthe%2Bfollowing%2Bletter.png" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Translated transcript follows.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(Source: David Victor; Image: Albert Einstein, via.)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Princeton, 3. 1. 1954</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Dear Mr Gutkind,</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Inspired by Brouwer's repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me. What struck me was this: with regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human element. This unites us as having an "unAmerican attitude."</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Still, without Brouwer's suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and whose thinking I have a deep affinity for, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual "props" and "rationalization" in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>With friendly thanks and best wishes,</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Yours,&nbsp;</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>A. Einstein</i></div><div><br /></div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-44161421618498745252016-02-28T09:09:00.001+08:002016-02-28T09:09:49.176+08:00A Blind Argument<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--M3z6HBNTd8/VtJIwU1coPI/AAAAAAAAPS8/V-_cmdq1AIY/s1600/A%2BBlind%2BArgument.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--M3z6HBNTd8/VtJIwU1coPI/AAAAAAAAPS8/V-_cmdq1AIY/s640/A%2BBlind%2BArgument.png" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So here we go again, another claim of a “perfect human design.” Today’s topic will be a little bit easier to grasp because we’ll be dealing only one human body part – the eye.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><a name='more'></a><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">When we talk about “design’ that means a plan to emphasize a certain functionality. &nbsp; Example: We design a chair to look that way, because the purpose is for us to sit on that object. A cabinet is design to keep our things, a car is designed for faster mobility… and so on. &nbsp;Now in this Creationist’s post, he said that, “the eye must have been designed by someone who realized that it would be functioning in an atmosphere of dust and wind. It was designed in such a way to adjust to such conditions.”&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Ok, so let see if he’s right – granted that we play along with his assertion that a “Designer” designed the eye so “that it would be functioning in an atmosphere of dust and wind.” According to his commentary, the eye was place in front of the face and the defenses (from dust and wind) are the following:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><ul><li>Tears</li><li>Eyelids</li><li>Eyebrows</li></ul><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Let’s see the quality of each “defense.” &nbsp;I’ll be playing QA (Quality Assurance) to check the “Creator’s” work.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. So the tears are there to lubricate the human eye against dryness. So what happened to the dust and wind? The tears attracts dust particle – no it doesn’t protect the eye against dust and wind. Dust stick to the tears and the wind dries it to form a goo where bacteria thrives. The tear glans’ opening is so small yet it is not protected against bacterial invasion – tada! Now you get “Pink Eyes.” Obviously, the Creator is not thinking well.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So why not create a liquid tear that instead of attracting dust from the wind, it will actually repel it? Or how about a natural lubricating system that is not exposed to dust and wind so it will not dry up with the dust particle? I remember this lizard that have 2 eyelids – the 2nd eyelids closes horizontally which wipes out dust from its eyes – that will be cool!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Conclusion: BAD DESIGN!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. Now we go to the eyelids. The eyelids is said to protect the eye from dust. So we close our eyes in a dusty road – but the barrier is not fool proof – dust still enters the eye and worst, it attached itself just below the eyelids where you can’t reach it. It irritates the eye membrane and what do you do? Yep! You rub your eyes. So when you rub your eyes, the dust particle will scratch the eye, the thin eye membrane will be scratched and damaged and you get your eyes infected.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What’s worst?&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Your eyelid (thank you for the eyelashes) has these hairs (which are supposed to be an added protection) that detaches and enters your eye to become the irritant itself.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Why not create a natural eye shield – a dome like structure that will cover the eye from dust. A tough, glass-like membrane that doesn’t have hairs which are susceptible from breakages. This will cover the eyes from dust and dirt particles completely- something like the eye-shield of your expensive motorcycle helmet, complete with lens that darkens when exposed from too much light for added protection.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Conclusion: INCOMPLETE FUNCTIONALITY, BAD DESIGN!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. The eye brows are there to protect our eyes from sweat? Darn, really? What a waste! If you will look closely on how your eyes are positioned on your face, you will noticed that it is slightly bulging. So when sweat travels from your forehead, gravity dictates that it will not go straight to your eyes but around it – in the same way where tears travel when you are crying… Duh? &nbsp;If the “Designer” have already placed it that way, what are the eyebrows for? It is just wasted material.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Conclusion: WASTEFUL, NO FUNCTIONALITY AT ALL. BAD DESIGN!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I give the “designer” a “D” for effort and “F’ for functionality.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What else?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The human eyes are located in front of the face – with a capacity of just viewing &nbsp;“the front view” – thus we cannot see anything at the side, on top, below or at the back of our body (unless we turn our head), &nbsp;and we’re bipedal, remember? This is not good when it comes from protecting ourselves from predators. A good designer should have supplemented this short-coming with a bigger eye with multiple lenses.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the human eye, the visual nerve fibres (the nerves and blood vessels) lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it. Therefore, the nerves dive through a hole on the eye’s surface which in turn, causes a blind spot. Squids and octopuses do not have this defect.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The eye’s photocells point away from the scene that is actually being looked at. As a result, light rays have to surpass a dense, concentration of cellular wiring in order to stimulate the photocells. This is like putting wires of a video camera in front of the lens.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So much for the Designer’s logic and if you call this “intelligence,” then you have to get your dictionary and look for the meaning of the word.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Oh here. I’ll make it easier for you…</div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><b>in‧tel‧li‧gence /inˈtelijəns/ ♫&nbsp;</b></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><b>▶ noun&nbsp;</b></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><b>The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills</b></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Until next time.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-74837313994505373732016-02-26T10:32:00.002+08:002016-02-26T10:32:20.758+08:00Losing Faith?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rKkosw8F7LU/VsUpXso3rHI/AAAAAAAAPRI/JN3kT3GylWo/s1600/Untitled%2B%25282%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="418" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rKkosw8F7LU/VsUpXso3rHI/AAAAAAAAPRI/JN3kT3GylWo/s640/Untitled%2B%25282%2529.png" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />The Bible defined faith as “evidence of things not seen…” yet why is it that most Christians today are so fucked up with evidence to the point that they have to invent one out of the blue? Hello? Belief in a Jewish Sky Daddy is a faith – it doesn’t require evidence.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="text-align: justify;">Now, that you guys are not contented with your own cop-out, you need to drag Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking, and who knows who in the scientific community to join your cracked belief. Why? Is your faith not enough so you need to lie for Jesus?&nbsp;</span><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a></div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-54410434152157734712016-02-26T10:31:00.002+08:002016-02-26T10:31:28.904+08:00The Funny Thing about Theist’s Anatomy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ojtsn4OawFg/Vs-43qxd3lI/AAAAAAAAPSo/-zoMrnFeJeg/s1600/The%2BFunny%2BThing%2Babout%2BTheist%25E2%2580%2599s%2BAnatomy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="420" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ojtsn4OawFg/Vs-43qxd3lI/AAAAAAAAPSo/-zoMrnFeJeg/s640/The%2BFunny%2BThing%2Babout%2BTheist%25E2%2580%2599s%2BAnatomy.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Nah, I’m not going to talk about their “missing brains.” This is rather a different story.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></div><a name='more'></a><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Every time a god-believer tackle the issue concerning human anatomy, he always claim that his “Scientist Creator” did a perfect job. Perfect huh? Perfect iner… designing us humans?</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Noticed this Facebook post from a certain “PlaLovealliance.” Oh uh… let me leave his ignorance concerning evolution. There are more fun part on his post. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">According to this guy, “God gave much thought to the human body’s design.” Oh really? Well, if this was God’s design then God is such a failure in Design 101.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;"></div><ul><li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">1.</span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">God place the human brain on top of his head. Hello? On top of our head? With a thin skull shielding it from traumatic accidents? That’s why humans invented the helmet. Remember that humans are bipedal – that means we stand in our legs and we are susceptible from falling. So we fall and our head and the skull inside it doesn’t even have all the safety precautions to save our brain from damages. Talk about designs. Geezz!</span></li><li><br /></li><li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">2.</span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Speaking of bipedal, humans are so slow. We can run, but we cannot outrun a lion, a cheetah or even a small Chihuahua running amok.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">&nbsp; </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">In case of danger, being bipedal will not give us any advantage to outrun a predator.</span></li><li><br /></li><li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">3.</span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Our eyes in front of our face – oh my golly! Is that an advantage? Humans don’t have the capacity to see all 360 degrees. All we can see are those in front of us, not the one behind us. Damn those blind spots!</span></li><li><br /></li><li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">4.</span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Speaking of the human eyes, ears and noses, we are only capable of seeing certain wavelength, of hearing certain sound and smell certain odor– a cosmic speed limit? Oh come on, this Designer made my doggie Fi-Fi capable of seeing , smelling and hearing better compare to me – his favorite human?</span></li><li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">5.</span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Our esophagus and larynx is connected to one tube in our neck, that’s why we choke when we eat and drink. Talk about perfect design.</span></li><li><br /></li><li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">6.</span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Males balls (your testicles dummy!) is susceptible on rupturing – hernia man! It also dangle visibly between your legs. One kick and BOOM! All your descendants exploded in a mist of agony. Damn you Designer!</span></li></ul><!--[if !supportLists]--><br /><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; text-align: justify;">So, with all of PlaLovealliance’s problem concerning “eye’s on the back of his head and eyes on his hand” he forgotten one thing that humans can do – adaptation! Humans can adopt on his environment – well, obviously PlaLovealliance doesn’t know that. Remember that he doesn’t have any idea what evolution is all about.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; text-align: justify;">Life adapts. If there are useless body parts, then another body part will evolve to supplement its functions. That’s why cave fishes still have eyes– they don’t use it, but it’s still there, but the cave fish’s skin acts as sonar to help navigate the fish on dark waters.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; text-align: justify;">If you have eyes on your hands, eyes in the back of your head,a deeper set of mouth or an upside down nose, you as a sentient being will adapt to its use and if it doesn’t work, we find a way to supplement it<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a>. That’s why humans invent things – to supplement our body’s short coming. We invented books because our brain doesn’t have the capacity to hold more information. We invent the wheel to supplement our work and speed and we invented the ball cup to prevent your buddy in doing a lot of damages when he kicks your balls… and so on.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; text-align: justify;">A Creator is really not necessary for life to evolve and adapt to its environment. Nature’s law and human intervention are enough.</div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-55428968297442289132016-02-22T10:05:00.001+08:002016-02-22T10:05:16.992+08:00Shrouded Evidence<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lyfUNvDE6hE/VspshPZRjZI/AAAAAAAAPR4/eeN5PGSfVSM/s1600/Page%2B1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lyfUNvDE6hE/VspshPZRjZI/AAAAAAAAPR4/eeN5PGSfVSM/s640/Page%2B1.png" width="452" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MA6p9pNsCbM/Vspsixnk2FI/AAAAAAAAPR8/SWM-1SKnmts/s1600/Page%2B2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MA6p9pNsCbM/Vspsixnk2FI/AAAAAAAAPR8/SWM-1SKnmts/s640/Page%2B2.png" width="452" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_8pk9BDnXGg/Vspsg5SAkEI/AAAAAAAAPR0/0tUh7bF_Pe8/s1600/Page%2B3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_8pk9BDnXGg/Vspsg5SAkEI/AAAAAAAAPR0/0tUh7bF_Pe8/s640/Page%2B3.png" width="452" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BAk8IGmWLq4/VspstCxjjQI/AAAAAAAAPSA/R5eHmCwuo7I/s1600/Page%2B4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BAk8IGmWLq4/VspstCxjjQI/AAAAAAAAPSA/R5eHmCwuo7I/s640/Page%2B4.png" width="452" /></a></div><br /></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-35402571154101424832016-02-18T10:10:00.000+08:002016-02-18T10:10:08.824+08:00Baby Killer?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TZDPcmrvKr8/VsUm6hNISpI/AAAAAAAAPQ0/kZOQPKvy5pk/s1600/Untitled.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="418" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TZDPcmrvKr8/VsUm6hNISpI/AAAAAAAAPQ0/kZOQPKvy5pk/s640/Untitled.png" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of those stories in the so-called Holy “Good Book” I really abhor is about this so-called “All-Good, merciful and just” God ordering his chosen people to mercilessly slaughter the innocent Amalekites—men, women, and children. Christian apologists have done a lot trying to fix the damage – all the excuses they could burble to justify their god’s action on this one… uh, OK if you’re not familiar with the verse:&nbsp;</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.</i><i>Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.</i><i>-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I Samuel 15:2-3</i></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><a name='more'></a><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Reading the verse seems to picture a blood-thirsty fiend, corrupted by revenge eager to inflict genocide. The Lord of Hosts eh, is that the kind of God these Christians wanted me to worship? My gulay! Not even Conan the Barbarian is capable of killing babies. &nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-axhTdVGZEXQ/VsUn1sVcB3I/AAAAAAAAPQ8/mR1M1LEwA-U/s1600/Untitled-1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-axhTdVGZEXQ/VsUn1sVcB3I/AAAAAAAAPQ8/mR1M1LEwA-U/s640/Untitled-1.png" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Anyway, to save God, his PR people (AKA Christian apologists) are doing all the goddamn justifications they can imagine. Now here’s a good example from Norman Geisler’s book, When Critics Ask. According to Geisler,<i> “The Amalekites were far from innocent. In fact, they were utterly depraved. What is more, they desired to destroy Israel.” Wow… talk about pointing the dirty finger. Furthermore, he said, “As to the question about the innocent children, several observations are relevant. First, we are all born in sin and deserve death. Everyone will eventually be taken by God in death— it is only a matter of when. Second, God is sovereign over life and reserves the right to take it when He will. Third, all children who die before the age of accountabilityare saved. Hence, the act by which God took the children is far from merciless.”</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, is this the lame excuse Mr. Geisler can come up with? Oh come on!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The issue here is why kill babies and suckling… you know, little toddlers who are still sucking milk from their mother’s breasts. What did they did? Are they capable of holding a spear and a sword? Can these little babies fight back? Does God gets a hard-on and an orgasm every time he hears a baby screaming while being cut into tiny, little bloody pieces with a sword?&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now, we all deserve death – that’s what Mr. Geisler and most Christians will say, but then why say the death penalty is immoral? Why you Christians get pissed-off every time a criminal gets the chair or the lethal injection? Why say life is precious, a gift from your loving Father - if we all deserve to die? And I also can’t comprehend the excuse Mr. Geisler and most Christians use in respect of the issue of their god ordering the Israelites to kill infant and sucklings – that we deserve death? Death to babies? &nbsp;It’s horrible. I can’t even imagine a little baby being brutalized, crying while being sliced by a sword (and I don’t even believe in a god). So you friggin' Christians think that a baby deserved to be sliced, beheaded, ripped apart limbs from limbs – and he deserves it because your god wants payback. GOOD GRIEF!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Christian defense doesn’t make any sense.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, if you will try to read the verse, that doesn’t say that God killed the babies. No, it doesn’t say that God took their LIVES. THE BASTARD (that you call God) ORDERED HIS PETS TO KILL THEM. The same way a drug Lord orders his goons to kill people.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This verse only show that this so-called “loving” god of Abraham, Moses and Jacob, the same god that Jesus addressed as The Father has the same mentality of a Drug Lord. A big bully that used sword-wielding goons to do his derange ambition to give his “chosen people” a piece of land to live – a small patch of rocky desert in the Middle East. Oh my… and he loves to slaughter babies for payback.</div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-47057362747620826372016-02-08T14:43:00.002+08:002016-02-08T14:43:18.921+08:00Faith?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. - Psalm 18:2<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MkTejOM1ZsE/Vrg47GdI5tI/AAAAAAAAPPo/IHU1YsuzLWU/s1600/12645053_444350142432677_706754861501982708_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="422" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MkTejOM1ZsE/Vrg47GdI5tI/AAAAAAAAPPo/IHU1YsuzLWU/s640/12645053_444350142432677_706754861501982708_n.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />Me: Uhhh... so why with the bullet-proof cab and so many armed body guards?<br /><br /></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-68262199076486206952016-02-07T12:00:00.000+08:002016-02-07T12:00:02.644+08:00Good people do evil things because of religion.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Zj8iDAM2BYk/VrbBNG1HcxI/AAAAAAAAPPU/fIYlVQu0Qwk/s1600/Untitled.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="406" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Zj8iDAM2BYk/VrbBNG1HcxI/AAAAAAAAPPU/fIYlVQu0Qwk/s640/Untitled.png" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."</i> - Steven Weinberg</div></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624269659765973625.post-9234424547970830782016-02-03T19:07:00.001+08:002016-02-03T19:07:08.794+08:00Cops and Bibles<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PX8i9oCBk6k/VrHfSj2I_8I/AAAAAAAAPMs/KCSsutxp764/s1600/Untitled.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="430" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PX8i9oCBk6k/VrHfSj2I_8I/AAAAAAAAPMs/KCSsutxp764/s640/Untitled.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div>John Paraisohttps://plus.google.com/113782890570196799273noreply@blogger.com0